decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I found Apple's evidence that Samsung knew of the bankruptcy | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Samsung *SHOULD* have known of the bankruptcy before the verdict?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT
I think that it isn't that they knew of it but that they should have known of
it, according to apple at least. I haven't read the filings (yet) though so I
could be wrong and I am basing this on what PJ said.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I found Apple's evidence that Samsung knew of the bankruptcy
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
Apple's complaint (document 2050, PDF linked in this article) refers to document
2022 when they say Samsung knew of the bankruptcy. Looking in Groklaw's archive
of the case I see that 2022 was refiled by the court clerk as as 2025 to correct
some filing error. What I find in 2025 (PDF in Groklaw's archive of the case) is
a long string of emails between Samsung's lawyers and Apple's lawyers over
getting the information from Samsung's lawyers about what they knew when. About
the bankruptcy, Samsung talks about finding out the details of Seagate's
involvement and the lawsuit that was related to the bankruptcy only after the
trial and as a result of digging after the juror talked to the press. Samsung
also talks about that being the only part that they are saying is cause for
declaring juror misconduct. But Apple's lawyers in the emails press for
specifically when did Samsung's lawyers learn of the bankruptcy. There is no
email with the answer, but there is Exhibit D in that PDF which is a report from
Lexis-Nexis on the juror that is similar to a credit report run on him and does
say that he had a bankruptcy.

So apparently, Apple is claiming that because Samsung had been informed that he
had a bankruptcy on his record and knew that he had not disclosed a bankruptcy,
they therefore waived all the claims that they are making now.

Samsung is arguing that the specific fact of having had a bankruptcy was not
something that he was asked about and is not the subject of the alleged lies,
which have to due with the bankruptcy-related lawsuits that they are claiming
are relevant.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wishful thinking
Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
This is just Apple making unsupported accusations about Samsung.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Between the lines
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:16 AM EDT
Apple's attempt to paint it as Samsung's fault that the foreman ended up on the
jury could be indicative of the extent of damage Apple thinks he has caused.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To answer the OP's question...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Thanks to PJ, we have the information now. It was in #2022, paragraph 9. See the
replies to the next root level comment.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )